User talk:Floyd Davidson

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

Welcome

Hello,

If you leave a message here I'll eventually see it. Quicker would probably be to use the "toolbox->e-mail this user" option on the left. But if you send me email, put "Barrow" in the subject line or I may not be able to distinguish it from the hundreds of spam messages I get every day.

If you disagree with something I've edited, I do listen to logic...

 Floyd davidson 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow, Alaska

WP:V requires that statements be attributed to an outside source that is verifiable. That a random person in the town resembles a character in the 30 Days of Night movie or comic strip, absent an outside verification, is nothing more than conjecture and is disallowed. This is official policy, and not a guideline, and there is no way around it. --David Shankbone 16:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, and try reading the material you removed for what it is. It is not a statement of fact, verifiable or otherwise. It's a joke, which reveals a fact.

The part which says that the comics nor the movie depiction of Barrow resembles the real Barrow is a varifiable FACT. It is included in many of the movie reviews. Anyone who has seen the movie and has a clue about how many trees there are within 100 miles of Barrow can verify it for you.

Please realize that the entire entry about the movie is indeed a humorous side note. It has no lasting relevance to understanding the town of Barrow Alaska. But it is amusing!

Eventually, in a couple of months or more, I'll delete the entire comment, or at least most of it, anyway.

We are an encyclopedia, not a place for jokes. You are welcome to cite to a newspaper or article about any of the information there, but you are in violation of policy by continually putting in that "joke". This is your second warning. --David Shankbone 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect... The necessary cite for the essential FACT was already there. I have repeated it, and added others, as well as putting it in perhaps less interesting context but more bluntly.

If you continue with destructive edits, with even a single one, I will file a complaint for vandalism. YOU have been warned. Floyd Davidson 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cites

Just to let you know there is no "cite", "cite title" or "citation URL" templates as such. What you would need is one of the Wikipedia:Citation templates. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that familiar yet with the formats for any number of things! Hence the errors. Give it time... There are still half a dozen other rather large pages that I'm going to go over from one end to the other between now and next summer. I'll get lots of practice. :-)

Floyd Davidson (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Some of the templates are not that easy to find or figure out. I spent 15 minutes today trying to make a link to Wiktionary using a template. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow, Alaska

I am going to restore the information. If you remove it again I will alert the admin board and you will be blocked. You are edit-warring and you are on the wrong side. --David Shankbone 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are bordering on obvious vandalism. First, that entry is clearly not within wikipedia guidelines. It makes no difference how many people try to keep it there, it does not belong in an article about Barrow Alaska. But your continued effort to disrupt cleanup and clarifying edits is also unacceptable behavior. If you wish to continue, I will have no choice but to log a complaint against YOU. If you think I'm on the wrong side, that's fine, but almost any reasonable admin is going to agree that trivia which does not add information about the subject of an article does not belong in the article, and that added to the disruptive edits in other places makes you clearly out of order.Floyd Davidson 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to report you now for 3RR and you will be blocked from editing. --David Shankbone 16:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David I have tried to deal with you as an honest person. I've put it in several different ways (both in comments and in the way it has been edited), and you do nothing other than revert a trivia entry that is little more than an advertizement for a movie, which should never have been on the Barrow page to begin with. You have edited out several very correct additions, by myself and by others. You have also repeatedly restored incorrect information that has been removed.

Please do report me. I have no problem standing by my actions as correct. I would highly suggest you seek a more appropriate action. Your edits have bordered right on vandalism on more than one occasion. I think and independant review would be a wonderful idea!Floyd Davidson 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported. I'm sorry, are you referring to the joke you kept inserting into the page (Your words "Lighten up, and try reading the material you removed for what it is. It is not a statement of fact, verifiable or otherwise. It's a joke, which reveals a fact.") that I edited out? Regardless, you have been warned several times and now you have been reported. --David Shankbone 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. You have violated the 3 revert rule on the Barrow, Alaska article. I suggest you revert yourself before you get blocked from editing. Your last reversion removed sourced material. Jeffpw (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "last reversion" was 1) not a reversion, and 2) did not remove sourced material. You are mis-stating facts. I removed a false statement: "who take advantage of the month or so of darkness that takes place annually in the town", which is not sourced, and in fact is in conflict with sourced statements both elsewhere in the article and is also in conflict the the reference given for the last sentence in that item (which incidentally was one that I authored). The "source" you are referring to verifies the accuracy of my edits. Those are facts that you should have checked first, before making edits and before complaining about my edits.

There is nothing in the part you restored which deals with Barrow, other than one false statement. The entire section is trivia about the movie and is nothing less than an advertisement, which contributes nothing about Barrow. It is in violation of wikipedia guidelines. All of that has repeatedly been pointed out, and ignored by yourself and Mr. Shankbone.

Your edit is not correct, and should be reverted back at least to the minimally correct way that I had edited it, though best would be to the more appropriate and correct, within wikipedia guidelines, edits that I have been trying to apply.

No, what you are doing is edit-warring. The point is a series of graphic novels and a major film are set in Barrow and that is information that is relevant to the topic. It is already pointed out that it is not a complete accurate portrayal. Your local pride is getting in the way of creating an encyclopedia article that contains relevant information. If you continue to edit war, you will be blocked. Move on - you are not in the right here. --David Shankbone 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are edit warring. The point is that the article is about the town of Barrow, not about a movie that uses the name and nothing else. It is wrong to post information from the movie (a "month or so of darkness") which is not true of the actual town of Barrow. Nothing else in that entry is actually about the town of Barrow, and that means it should not be in the article. It does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, not to mention that you continue to restore a false statement. Get over your love of movies, or whatever it is that keeps you posting false information. If people want to know about the movie, they can go to the article about it, because that is what articles are for. People who want to know about Barrow go to the article about Barrow, and the misinformation from a movie is not what they should find.

In addition, I would point out that I've tried multiple ways to make the edits acceptable to you. You rigidly continue to go right back to almost the same thing every time. You are not being flexible, you are not making an effort at compromise or at finding any sort of consensus. I don't mind a bit if we attract the attention of Wikipedia admins on this...Floyd Davidson 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Barrow, Alaska. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You reinserted the {{Trivia}} template and removed content at least 4 times (the last of which being after you were duly warned above). WjBscribe 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we see that the first one to complain gets to declare the other guilty, without due process! But realistically, when someone looks at what is going on, I don't think this sort of tactic is going to stand.

Floyd Davidson 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to contest your block, and also free to file a request for community input. What you are not free to do is edit war. Please read WP:3RR to understand how to edit constructively here and not engage in this sort of behavior again. Jeffpw (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I find your actions, and those of David Shankbone, to be an abuse of the system. Shame on both of you. I am hardly the one who has refused to try finding a satisfactory solution, and I certainly have not and will not resort to the level of abuse this hints at. Why are you seeking constructive behavior???

Floyd Davidson 18:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Floyd Davidson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review the facts, rather than merely acting on a complaint by editors who are abusing the process. The facts are that I have removed a false statement from an article. I have also tagged the same section of the article with a trivia tag because it does not meet wikipedia guidelines. I have tried many different ways (read the comments on my talk page and see the edit history for the Barrow,_Alaska page) to convince David Shankbone to stop reverting the correct edits that I make to the page in question. He has done virtually nothing to compromise or to find a consensus, and has of course repeatedly threatened to have me blocked. I could just as well have done the same! Floyd Davidson 18:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but WP:3RR applies equally whether you are right or wrong. Edit-warring is disruptive and futile (since someone else can always revert you, an edit war can go on forever without achieving anything), so we use dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Even when you're sure you're right, you don't get to repeatedly revert. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

But of course David Shankbone didn't revert 4 times in 24 hours, you did. And (believe it or not) everyone in a content dispute thinks their edits are the "correct" ones. That's why Wikpedia had to bring in rules to stop edit warring and administrators were asked to enforce them. Next time, don't just keep reverting to your prefered version. WjBscribe 18:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consistently asked you to discuss it on the Talk page. Floyd, if someone goes looking for information about Barrow, it may be of interest to them that a major series of graphic novels and a major motion picture uses the town as its setting. That it is not 100% accurate is not relevant to something that is fiction. Facts are bent all the time to make for a better fiction story. You simply don't want this information on the page. But I think you are about the only person who would find it not relevant to this article that it is the setting for such major creative works, simply because it bends facts. --David Shankbone 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Mr Shankbone did revert edits, significantly more than 4 times in 24 hours too! The biggest difference is that each time I was trying to find something that would survive, but he went directly back to the same thing.

And while it is true that everyone thinks their version is correct... you will notice that I do not have a history of being concerned about that. You will also notice that in fact the false statement that I removed conflicts with a sourced statement earlier in the article, and conflicts with the reference provided for the last sentence for that item. Wikipedia has a richly deserved reputation as a source of inaccurate information because of exactly that type of entry!

The statement was that it is dark in Barrow for "a month or so" in winter. In fact it is more that twice that long (67 days), and that is an easy to verify fact See the references provided in the article. You can also check the edit history and find that at one time the article itself was not quite correct, and that I provided the correct facts and the reference.

I would also suggest that you read the discussion page for that article, as back in October others wanted it deleted, and I am the one who suggested waiting for awhile. But I did then say that it eventually should be removed for the reasons the other person complained about.

Whatever, tomorrow is another day. If you have no integrity and want to bully your way to victory, so be it. I'm not going to stoop to quite that level. But trust me that in the long run I think that article will be corrected. Floyd Davidson 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bear

If you want your edits to stick then they need to be sourced. What you added here was either unsourced or did not match the sources given. There was no source for "...when they are cut off from their normal food supply and have perhaps lost as much as 200 pounds of body weight due to starvation, the polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay population..." and "Polar bears, if they are starving and cut off from their normal food supply, will eat nearly anything..." does not match with the sources given.

You are right that the my sentence on eating berries was poorly worded and I have updated it here to reflect that they have been seen eating these things but it's not a significant part of their diet.

I was mor careful with the section on them eating styrofoam and other stuff. The sources did not mention that the bears were starving so that was removed and I made sure not to indicate that any human produced garbage normally formed part of the bears diet. Also if you look at the sources one of them mentions that a polar bear was shot in the Prince of Wales Strait and found to have consumed human garbage. A long way from the Hudson Bay population.

Here's some OR from me. The elders around here say that a polar bear found inland is more dangerous than one on the ice. The reason they give is that a bear will only move inland if there is no food on the ice. Another is that young bears will steal food from dog teams. I saw it happen twice. The second time the bear killed one of the dogs as well. Don't know if would have eaten the dog as the bear got shot after that. Ah well I got to eat some of the bear. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have to actually read the sources... See virtually every single cited source by Stirling. The fact that those bears are starving is well documented, and it is mentioned in the article as well as in virtually every reference cited dealing with diet. It does not require furthher citation.

"They live off of their fat reserves through the late summer and early fall when the sea-ice is at a minimum."

All of the statements about bears in dumps being well documented are misleading. That all refers to bears which have been trapped on land for months without food. They are starving. Stirling and others have documented the amount of weight loss (0.9kg/day for males) in several works, some of which are cited for that paragraph.

Finding one bear from somewhere else that has eaten garbage does not make it accurate to claim that garbage scavanging is a normal characteristic of polar bears. For example, bears are often seen near the dump at Barrow, but they don't visit it. They also wander through town now and then, but don't dig in the dumpsters. Bears here are usually well fed, and are not particularly hungry unless they are sick or crippled and cannot hunt. It is also true that we dump the remains of whales at a site well out of town with the specific intention of attracting polar bears, to keep them away from town.

The problem is that only that one population of polar bears normally experiences those particular conditions with regularity. Saying that polar bears are habituated to scavanging in dumps is ridiculous given that the vast majority of polar bears have never been near a dump, and most of them that do find a dump do not attempt to eat anything in the dump.

This is not a matter of citing proper documentation, it is a matter of understanding the already cited documentation and accurating writing the article to reflect what is known. Seeing starving bears lick up motor oil obviously does not make motor oil a valid part of a bear's diet. The exact same is true of garbage in general, and of berries, seaweed and root. And that information is available in the cited references.

Yes, and inland polar bear is almost guaranteed to be a very hungry bear. Bears on the ice want to see what you have, bears inland want you... :-)

Floyd Davidson (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow

Hey man, good work on the Transportation section. Glad we were able to resolve our disagreements about the sports/related trivia. Well done! C1k3 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have resolved nothing. The sports trivia section needs to be removed. Those who do not agree need to look up the term "consensus"; and they need to cease posting personal attacks on those they do not agree with.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, I suppose some people can't be appeased. But I stand by what I said in my previous post; just acknowledge the fucking compliment, you prick. C1k3 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umiak

I changed it to read "...formerly used by Inuit and currently used by Eskimo people..." which should cover it. The article could do with some references though. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the spell checker I used yesterday was set to UK spelling so I changed the aluminium back to aluminum as the article is mainly about the Alaskan umiak. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"formerly used by Inuit and currently used by Eskimo" is a bit absurd! Inuit *are* Eskimos. The point is that the initial statement of who used that type of boat simply has to say "Eskimo", not Inuit. If we want the term "Inuit" in the article, it has to be in some reasonable way, and can't be so awkward that it changes the meaning of what is said. I'll give it a go... Floyd Davidson (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo

Hello, I'm the IP user whose changes you've been reverting. I've requested assistance from WP:WQA. I've made comments at WP:WQA#Floyd Davidson, but we can continue this on Talk:Eskimo. Whynot77 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing dispute tags placed in good faith, as you did, without any consensus, is not appropriate. Whynot77 (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.paganel.eu/greenland/

I changed the link to http://wikitravel.org/en/Greenland as the paganel.eu site copied it from there and it has the required information. There was also an odd line break in Pam's reference which I also removed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Floyd Davidson (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television in Barrow, Alaska

You said that the two transmitters in Barrow don't exist? FCC records say otherwise:

K04KS Barrow
K11NN Barrow

-- azumanga (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FCC records are for the licenses; they are not an indication of an operational transmitter.

Channel 4 has apparently not been active since RATNET was turned into ARCS. The channel 11 transmitter was working for some short period of time under ARCS, but has probably been gone for well over a decade now.Floyd Davidson (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Feel free to revert (unless you already did); I'll also change the ARCS article. (I suppose all TV in Barrow comes from cable, correct?) By the way -- do you have a knowledge of ARCS history (since you know its former name)? -- azumanga (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know some of the people and history. I am retired, but worked for Alascom, so anything involving the telecom network in Alaska is something I'll have touched personally at some point. That includes a few of those old RATNET TV transmitters... :-)

GCI provides cable service in Barrow. It originally was an independant company named Barrow Cable, which GCI bought out 2-3 years ago. GCI is (along with Alascom) a major provider of telecommuncations in Alaska and has significant C band satellite earth station facilities for Barrow

Ku-Band satellite home TV is also fairly popular here.

I'm not much for TV, and don't own a TV set myself.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow, Alaska again

If you restore the trivia tag one more time, I will not only ask you be blocked, but I will ask that you be banned from editing the Barrow, Alaska article. We have been through this before with you, and if you start edit warring over this tag AGAIN then it will be an indication that your WP:OWNership issues on this article will never be resolved. There is far too much evidence that you think "Only Floyd Davidson is qualified to write about Barrow" and it's becoming a problem since you repeat behavior you have been taken to task for before, and are once again edit-warring. I won't warn again. This is getting tiresome with you and the only remedy may be to have you banned from the article, which I don't want to do but I'm not going to get in these petty spats with you anymore. --David Shankbone 13:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask for a Checkuser to see if User:Golden retrievers is you. If it is, then you are abusively using a WP:SOCK, which is cause for a ban from editing the site. --David Shankbone 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are inappropriate and so are your continued personal attacks.Floyd Davidson (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to the article Barrow, Alaska. The links are in clear violation of Wikipedia's external links policy as they are mostly to commercial and/or personal websites of dubious educational importance. I recommend highly that you stop adding any external links to any article, since it is clear that you do not understand the difference between appropriate and inappropriate links. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

This is a notification that a topic involving you is being discussed. APK ^{yada yada} 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring at Barrow, Alaska; repeated inclusion of text or materials against consensus and discussion; refusal to take part in said discussions. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seicer | talk | contribs 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inuit

If you continue in this course you will end up blocked again. Do you understand what is wrong with your edits? You have no support for them, consensus so far is firmly against you, there is no justification in WP policy, and so far you have shown little willingness to listen when these reasons are explained. This is not a webspace where you can say whatever you feel like. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Floyd Davidson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]